Anne Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank my colleagues who have spent many hours listening to NIH testimony and getting quite an appreciation for the research they have done on reading, and to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who is my cochair in the Reading Caucus that seeks to bring focus on what reading programs work. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations on which both the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I sit has had a number of discussions about the recommendations of the National Reading Panel, a report compiled by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Department of Education. The National Reading Panel was charged with conducting a comprehensive review of the evidence-based research on reading and assessing the effectiveness of different approaches. As my colleagues know, NICHD has conducted scientific research and identified the steps required for all children to become effective readers. Armed with that research and knowledge, we now need to take the next step, putting research into practice. We are pleased that the President's Reading First Initiative has been shaped by the findings of the National Reading Panel. Reading is a fundamental building block of education. That is why it is crucial that our students receive the best reading instruction. Mr. Chairman, the dismal statistics of illiteracy simply do not have to exist. We are optimistic that with the National Reading Panel's findings as our guide, we can achieve much better results.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of House bill 586 and to remind ourselves that it would be easy, considering the system of government, to think of this bill as a tax bill; but it is really a bill about children and families. So often youngsters in the classroom ask me where I got the best insight to serve as a Member of Congress. They expect me to talk about my economics classes or different classes I had in school. And I always answer that it is being the mother of six children. What I have learned is that families are the most enduring, important part of a child's life. It is the security that they begin life with and that they carry throughout life. Some of our children in this country have not been blessed with a consistent family life. To our good fortune, we have agencies that are becoming partners with our States to provide more children with better services and an even better chance of growing up in a foster family. Some of these children come from the most difficult circumstances, and it is not surprising that sometimes support systems have to be in place for these families. It is to our good fortune and to this country's good fortune and to our children's good fortune that we have so many of these agencies that are able to provide the comprehensive support services that families need. It is only reasonable that we make sure that our tax laws support these new evolving, important systems that allow children to have what is the most important thing in their life: a family. And so this bill is not about taxes. It is about families, specifically foster families, and expanding the number and the opportunity and the differing looks that foster families often have as they serve each one of our unique children. God bless our children. How lucky we are to have the services of our foster services, and this bill will help make sure that those services exist and expand for every child.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the thousands of men and women in Kentucky who have dedicated themselves to that most noble of endeavors: nursing. Every day, nurses--both in Kentucky and across the nation--sacrifice themselves to the causes of caring, of healing, and of loving. By tending to the sick and easing suffering, nurses play a tremendously vital role in the medical profession and our society at large. We can all recall a time when a nurse became a crucial figure in our lives. When any one of us has been ill or trying to care for a sick loved one, nurses have always been there to provide help. Whether in a strictly medical capacity--mending a bone or administering medicines-- or to offer reassurance, a shoulder to cry on, or an anchor of calm in the chaos and upheaval that we all know illness can cause, it seems that nurses perform a thousand and one duties to ensure that pain and suffering are washed away. Since time immemorial, nurses have been on the front lines of the fight against sickness, but today that fight grows harder. Newly discovered illnesses, an increasing population, and an explosion in the demand for emergency care have all come together to force nurses to assume more and more responsibilities, while, at the same time, they must continue to strive to gain ground in the war against suffering. I understand these issues, and want to give my thanks to nurses across America for maintaining the same unflagging generosity that has characterized the profession in the past. During National Nurses Week this May, I want to especially recognize Kentucky Nurses, those men and women who, day after day, give of themselves to so many people in the Bluegrass State. I hope you will join me in honoring nurses for their commitment to helping others feel better.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize someone who has devoted his time and energy to his church and his beliefs. Reverend Dr. Thurmond Coleman, Sr., pastored the First Baptist Church in Jeffersontown, Kentucky for 45 years. Upon his retirement, he was named Pastor Emeritus. Dr. Coleman has served as the Moderator of the Central District Association for the past 6 years, and his tenure will end in July 2001. He is a community leader serving on the Louisville League, the NAACP, and the Kentucky Human Rights Commission. Dr. Coleman is also a civil rights leader bringing about reconciliation between black and white Baptists and among all races and religion. On Saturday, March 31, 2001, Dr. Coleman will be honored for his hard work and dedication as Moderator of the Central District Baptist Association, which has a membership of 147 churches. Individuals such as Dr. Coleman play a vital role in reconciling the divisions in our community and in building the hope of a better future for each person. I am proud to bring your attention to Reverend Dr. Thurmond Coleman, Sr., and all of and of all of his achievements.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize someone who has devoted his time and energy to his church and beliefs. Rev. Dr. Thurmond Coleman, Sr., pastored the First Baptist Church in Jeffersontown, Kentucky for 45 years. Upon his retirement he was named Pastor Emeritus. Dr. Coleman has served as the Moderator of the Central District Association for the past six years, and his tenure will end in July 2001. He is a community leader serving on the Louisville Urban League, NAACP, and Kentucky Human Rights Commission. Dr. Coleman is also a civil rights leader bringing about reconciliation between black and white Baptists and among all races and religions. On Saturday, March 31, 2001, Dr. Coleman will be honored for his hard work and dedication as Moderator of the Central District Baptist Association, which has a membership of 147 churches. Individuals such as Dr. Coleman play a vital role in reconciling the divisions in our community and in building the hope of a better future for each person. I am proud to bring your attention to Rev. Dr. Thurmond Coleman, and all of his achievements.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, when the people around this country think about Louisville, Kentucky, a number of positive images come to mind. We are known as the hometown of sports legends Muhammad Ali, Pee Wee Reese, Denny Crum, and Paul Hornung. We are known as the home of the greatest 2 minutes in sports, the running of the Kentucky Derby. And, of course, we are home to the world-famous Louisville Slugger baseball bat. Mr. Speaker, another sports legend, Rick Pitino, has returned home to Kentucky, this time as head basketball coach at the University of Louisville. Coach Pitino is no stranger to our State. He led the University of Kentucky Wildcats to a national championship in 1996. We are thrilled to have Coach Pitino back where he belongs, in the Bluegrass State. No one likes to win basketball games more than Coach Pitino. But more importantly, he will set a great example for our children and young adults, inspiring them to set high goals and then work hard to achieve success. Coach, welcome back to Kentucky and to the University of Louisville.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 35 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of this rule and in favor of the invocation of the Congressional Review Act. First of all, let us remember what the Congressional Review Act is for. It is for remedying extraordinary rules that would cause extreme damage in our country. It was signed by the former President. It was agreed to by both Chambers of Congress, and it was seen to be a good way to address a problem that might come up and be needed in the future. And if ever it is needed, today it is needed. We have a new rule that has been promulgated that would cause extreme damage to our workplace. Let us admit it, we are a land of prosperity right now primarily because of our workers. Let us give our workers their just due. They go to work every day. They are hard working. They are productive. They work smart, and they are dependable. It is those qualities that have remade our economy from the years where we wondered whether we could be internationally competitive, and it is those workers that have worked so hard, worked so smart, been so dependable that are at the core of the prosperity that Americans all over this country enjoy. The worst thing we can do as a government is to create regulations that would be so high in costs that they would push our best jobs outside of this country. It is a reoccurring challenge that we face every day to keep good jobs here in this country. We ought to dedicate ourselves to it. As I have seen workers and companies do in my district that have reversed decisions, in fact, to keep work on shore in this country, in my community instead of transferring it offshore, we have to work harder at that, and we have to be very careful that as we all work towards what we believe in that we do not create a rule that has the law of unintended consequences, of pushing our best jobs out of this country. That would be a terrible thank you to the workers of this country that have meant so much to our prosperity and will mean so much to our children's prosperity. Let us all say it and say it again, we are all for the same thing, we are for safe workplaces. We are for healthy workers, and we are here to make sure that investments in our economy are important so that we can balance both safe workplaces and healthy workers and keeping our jobs on shore. Mr. Speaker, I am from the position that I believe we can have both, prosperity, healthy workers and keep jobs in this country. Some people do not believe that is possible, but the workers in this country are the very best. They deserve an environment where they can keep the good jobs that they have earned and prospered in. Mr. Speaker, this regulation was passed in the final days of the last administration. It was passed in a hurry. It did not review the law of unintended consequences, and it did not consider what the costs would be to the economy. Mr. Speaker, I have six children. They are ages 19 to 29, and they believe that this country and the jobs that they are going to have in the future will mirror the good jobs that my generation has had and depended on so that they can raise families and buy their first home and enjoy the benefits that our good jobs and our best workers have made possible for us. Please, let us not let our government tinker around in a regulation that would cost so much money, that would drive the cost of every good up, that would reduce our ability to be internationally competitive, that would make older workers and I want to say middle-aged workers, because that is where I consider myself, impossible to employ for the fear that workplaces would be wary of the costs they would incur to accommodate those workers. We have to protect the workplace for our workers, they are the best for our country.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, in this new atmosphere of bipartisanship, I am going to avoid being insulted by the claim of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the previous speaker, that somehow we do not see these things. But I do for the record want to make a note that my daughter, who works for UPS from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. in the morning actually had two of these braces on her hand. She does suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome. As a credit to the company, they do every single thing they can in terms of job rotation, in terms of remediation in remedying this problem. How dare we, how dare we act as though we do not care about these workers or that they are not our own daughters and our own sons. Let me just say that, first of all, I would like to respond to the fact that this will save money. If this rule would really save money, then the Federal Government ought to apply this rule to its own workers. One may notice that the Labor cabinet does not inflict this rule on Federal employees, which means that, if there is money to be saved, our taxpayers will not save this money that could be saved. Why would we ever apply something to the private workplace and not apply it to Federal workers and hold Federal employers responsible at exactly the same level that we hold the private workplace? Let me also congratulate the workplaces that are already spending enormous sums of money to address this issue. All of us know in workplaces that, where we are, maybe in our own offices, I might add, where we have spent money to address these problems, we are to recognize that, as a country, we are addressing this problem. But the big problem here is that, as we address this problem, because let us face it, in our economy, we need every worker we can get. It is important to us that we keep them healthy and able to work so that we are able to keep our economy growing. But there is someplace where there is not every worker working. There are places overseas where they are desperate to have our jobs and they are eager for our data processing jobs and they would be glad to have them at the less cost. It is very easy to transfer those jobs overseas; and with one click of the mouse, one can send all that processed information back into this country and not have the unreasonable cost that this rule invokes. This problem is not that we went on 10 years, it is that we had a Labor cabinet that was totally tone deaf. They did not learn anything from all of the testimony they took. They were determined to take an idea that was hatched back in the early 1990s, and let us give Elizabeth Dole credit for the first person that raised this issue and had a good idea about ergonomic problems, and hijacked it and took it in a very wrong direction. There is no balance to this rule. That is why we are here today because 10 years have been wasted by somebody that never listened to what the balance was in this issue.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I am angry, too. I am angry that we had a good idea in 1990 and 1992. Libby Dole and other Republicans encouraged an ergonomics standard, but what we have had over the last 8 years is an absolute tone deaf Labor cabinet that was going to pass a regulation without regard to how we best remedy the challenges that ergonomic injuries cause us. Mr. Speaker, give us good direction so that we can have both good jobs and also best effect in any injuries that occur in the workplace. It is hilarious to think that businesses are going to save money when we have runaway costs and you spend and you spend and you spend without any understanding of what you might be able to achieve and what would be cost effective. What happens when we do that? What happens right now in this country, where we fight everyday to keep our good jobs right here in this country, to keep them from moving overseas, the fact of the matter is, is that OSHA increases the costs of regulations. As OSHA increases costs without always knowing what the objective and the benefit will be, we make ourselves less able to be internationally competitive as we produce goods in this country. Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is be proud of the fact that the American workplace, which is the thing that brings us our prosperity, the thing that has built us a middle class that is able to buy homes and cars and go to work and provide for their children, that they depend on these jobs, and what they ask of us is for balance, to have regulations and government programs that make it possible to keep good jobs here and also make sure that we have healthy workers. The law of unintended consequences is going to go into effect if this rule went into effect. It would drive our best jobs overseas. Mr. Speaker, please, I ask my colleagues, let us have a real rule that really accomplishes what we want.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Susan B. Anthony and her work in promoting the life of the unborn. As you may be aware, February 15, 2001 marked the 181st birthday of Susan B. Anthony, one of our nation's greatest champions of not just of the rights of women, but of all Americans. However, Susan B. Anthony's work to secure women's rights took place on many fronts, from opposing prostitution to demanding the right to vote. And she considered her efforts in turning women away from abortion as some of the most important work of her life. She declared that amongst her greatest joys was to have helped ``bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so that their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.'' Today, we celebrate the spirit of Susan B. Anthony and continue her work in protecting the lives of the unborn. Her labors to provide more opportunities and choices for women leaves us with many alternatives to abortion. For example, the joy of motherhood and the act of responsible parenting can be extended to millions of women today through adoption. Adoption fills a vital role, ensuring that worthy options are available for women of all social segments, races, and backgrounds. Just like Susan B. Anthony, we can devote our energies toward making women independent of, and not dependent on, abortion as a recourse. Susan B. Anthony fought to lift the unjust burdens oppressing women, including the burden of abortion. As we celebrate her birthday and Women's History Month, let us also recommit ourselves to her goal of promoting motherhood and the unborn life.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, for millions of children with learning disabilities in this country, the future is brighter than any other time in this nation's history. That's because we know today what works for children learning to read. This is important because 90 percent of children with learning disabilities have difficulty with reading. Learning disabilities, or LD, are neurological disorders that affect people's ability to read, write, compute and participate fully in society. The good news is that if LD is identified early, before the age of nine, the majority of children can work up to their potential. Without early detection, the statistics are sobering. Thirty-five percent of students identified with learning disabilities drop out of high school. Fifty percent of juvenile delinquents tested were found to have undetected LD. When offered remedial services, their recidivism rates dropped to below 2 percent. According to the Office of the Inspector General, learning disabilities and substance abuse are the most common impediments to keeping welfare recipients from becoming and remaining employed. I have been working with learning disabilities issues in Congress for many years, from identifying educational needs, to calling for additional resources and promoting national policies that take into account the concerns of people with LD. Important progress has been achieved over the last two decades in identifying and treating children with learning disabilities. This is critical, because our nation is in the grip of a monumental and global change. As opposed to previous generations when the United States was primarily an agricultural and manufacturing-based country, our brave new world of technology has elevated information processing as a required skill in today's workers. And the future will only demand more information technology workers across every profession as the global community expands and competition for enterprise increases. This is why early identification of children with reading problems, and applying proven strategies to enable them to read, is fundamental to the future success of this great country's economy. More importantly, it is essential for the success of our children and our children's self esteem. Today, in recognition of National Learning Disabilities Month, the National Center for Learning Disabilities is launching a new initiative aimed at beginning readers. The ``Get Ready to Read'' program will assess the reading progress of children ages four to five. It will target those at risk for reading failure and provide enrichment activities to strengthen their skills. Parents, teachers, and pediatricians will be involved in creating a ``constellation of care'' around a child, effectively making sure that early on, before the cycle failure and defeat wreaks its damage, that the child is provided help. And you, no doubt, will hear from your constituents as this program progresses, because an important component of ``Get Ready to Read'' is for parents and others to keep their legislators apprised of issues affecting young children with reading problems. Reading is a basic building block in participating fully in society. In this country of opportunity and promise, we owe it to our children to make sure they learn to read, and read well. I applaud this effort by the National Center for Learning Disabilities to help our youngest Americans to hope, to learn and to succeed.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, this bill originated because one of my constituents, Thomas Williams, came to Washington, D.C. with his wife to see Washington, as so many Americans do. He wrote to me when he got home and talked about the moving moments he had as he went around Washington walking in the footsteps and being reminded of what a democracy this was and some of our important leaders. He wrote to me about what he thought was missing, and I would like to share with you some of those words: I looked for the spot on which Martin Luther King stood when he spoke. I looked for a marker to remind me and others that for a single moment on a hot August day a descendant of a slave held the most prominent space in our Nation and delivered words that will always stay with that space. I could not find a marker or the words on those steps. And he goes on to say that markers such as this are reminders that an ordinary space we sometimes occupy can become forever changed by the deeds of a person that has stood there. Looking even further, he said, into the future I saw a day when I could bring my yet unborn children to that spot where Martin Luther King spoke and I could show them that marker and read them the words of his dream. ``I could tell them that this is still a nation where a simple Kentucky farmer could rise to the heights of president, and that a son of a slave could inspire future generations with the power of his words and his compassion.'' Mr. Speaker, this plaque gives us these memories. All of us see schoolchildren that come to Washington each year. I reminded them that they are not only visiting the past, walking in the footsteps of our history, but that they are being filled with inspiration for their futures and for their responsibilities as leaders to make this democracy even better, to not be afraid to tackle the challenges, and to be part of the goodness of this country. These children look for the markers, look for the memories, that give them this inspiration, give them example, and give them a belief that they, too, can make a difference. So it is important that as they walk on the steps of the Lincoln Monument, that they not forget that very important day and that very important leader that Dr. Martin Luther King was to this country. I think it is also important to thank my constituent, Tom Williams, who wanted the events of 1963 to come alive to all who toured the Lincoln Monument. Today we honor his contribution as an interested citizen, a citizen that believed that he could make a suggestion, and that that suggestion might have a powerful result. Finally, the movement of this legislation also honors another man, Senator Paul Coverdell from Georgia, who sponsored this legislation on the Senate side. Senator Coverdell's death was a great loss to all of us this year, and we will miss him, but like the man we are honoring here today, Senator Coverdell will also be fondly remembered in our hearts.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the House passed H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, otherwise known as the LIFT bill. Passage of this bill not only lifts our spirits, but it will help lift the level of excellence in our teachers, which will benefit our children. The LIFT program makes improvements to the Even Start Program. Even Start programs work with adults without GED or high school diploma and their children to break cycles of illiteracy. It also provides parents with the skills they need to be their child's teachers and most important advocate. Simply put, the LIFT bill stresses the need for teacher professional development, the use of scientific research, and expands the program so that faith-based programs may partner with the federal government to improve literacy skills throughout our communities. Earlier this year, Sharon Darling from the National Center for Family Literacy testified before the appropriations subcommittee about the disconnect between what we know from science about how children learn to read and what teachers practice. Many teachers have admitted their frustration about not being equipped with the latest information--they want training and additional professional development. That is why LIFT is so important. It allows states to use federal money to provide training and technical assistance to instructors in Even Start and other programs with a focus on family literacy. In addition to providing instruction, LIFT requires the use of instructional reading programs which are based on scientifically-based research. Thanks to our investments in the National Institutes of Health, we know how we can best teach children to read. This is especially important for children with learning disabilities. Understanding that children are not the only ones with learning difficulties, the LIFT bill funds research to find the most effective ways to improve literacy among adults with reading difficulties. We know that family literacy is a key component to our children being successful. The Even Start program has helped parents obtain their high school equivalency certificate. By understanding the importance of furthering their own education, parents are more inclined to become more involved in their child's education. The LIFT bill builds on the success of the Even Start program, improves the quality of the program, and holds states accountable for the progress of local literacy programs. This Congress is fortunate to have members like Congressman Bill Goodling to shepherd this bill to the floor. Bill has worked diligently to improve the quality of education programs, whether it is improving elementary school programs, helping disabled children, or working on adult education programs. Since my time in Congress, Bill and I have worked closely together to stress the importance of scientifically based reading research and to get that information in the hands of teachers and parents. He is a fine leader on education and we will miss him when he retires after this year. With the LIFT bill, our families can lift themselves up and achieve their dreams.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Violence Against Women Act and to encourage its reauthorization by Congress and the President. As you know, legislation proposing a federal response to the problem of violence against women was first introduced in 1990, although violence against my gender has been recognized as a serious social problem since the late 1970's. Previous enactment of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) measures have resulted in grant programs and new penalties aimed at increasing awareness and reducing the occurrence of crimes against women. Reauthorization of VAWA ensures that our protection of women and perseverance in this area does not lapse, and provides support for the next five years to the law enforcement, hotlines, shelters and services, and community initiatives that assist our cities and localities in dealing with these types of crimes. Through this program, we have been able to better educate the American public how to respond to crimes against women. This funding has allowed us to bring bring domestic violence out of the shadows and into the forefront. For example, in my district of Louisville, since VAWA money has become available our area has become a model for other jurisdictions because of its multi-disciplinary approach to domestic violence. Agencies and organizations, previously struggling to cooperate with each other, now are working together. As a community we have received approximately $5.5 million in VAWA money. Our police are better trained and educated concerning the cycle of domestic violence. Victim advocates now work side by side with the police to provide a better response to victims of domestic violence. More evidence is being collected than ever before, and more victims are taking the brave step of coming forward and more convictions are stopping the cycle of abuse. Violence against women is not solely a problem for women. Every case that is left unaddressed has the potential to create more violence, to fuel a downward spiral of mental and physical abuse and to destroy more families. I believe the initiatives begun in 1990 go a long way in addressing the need for a tougher stance in this area. We must continue our commitment to increasing personal safety for everyone, and focus our efforts on programs that work to educate the public and prevent future crimes. We must work to limit the devastating consequences that occur to our women, our families and society as a whole. I encourage Congress to again support the VAWA programs which are so vital to combatting the occurence of domestic abuse, before authorization expires on September 30, 2000.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, as a relative newcomer on the block in Washington, people ask me all the time in my district if it seems different to be in Congress, if Washington is different, if it is different than our State legislatures, if it is different than our local councils. I always tell them it is astoundingly different; that, in fact, there is a culture of spending in Washington that is really unmatched anyplace else around this country. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, it is an everyday take-your-breath-away experience as I see one amendment after another to spend millions, hundreds of millions, billions more dollars. In fact, last week, there was an all-day markup that, that day alone, Members made proposals to raise spending $10 billion. The culture that there is no limit to the dollars, that there is no pain, that there is no working family at the other end of those tax dollars that paid that money in, in tax dollars and took it out of what they could spend for their children has been just an amazing culture for me to behold. I am proud to be part of a Congress that is trying to change that culture that has been with us for 40 years, that one could spend every dollar one could take, and that one could spend it when it is meant for future obligations in what feels good today or programs that we have today or new ideas that people have, that there is no limit. So we are maybe making beginning steps, but they are powerfully important. One of them is to take the Medicare dollars off the table from what we consider as surplus. For years, we have used Medicare dollars to fund new programs and programs that exist that we want to put more dollars into. What we have done, in essence, is to put an IOU in the cookie jar and said, someday, when Medicare needs this money, they can take it out. But of course when Medicare opens the cookie jar, there are no assets there to pay the bills. We are not going to be able to sell off our assets, our airports, our schools, our roads in order to recoup this money for Medicare. So this bill today, it is for our fathers and our grandparents. It is for those who put the money in for so many years when it was not respected for the purpose it was expected to be spent for. But it is also for our children, our children who want the best for their grandparents and for their parents who want to know that they can live up to their responsibilities and who we owe them the possibility of a program that is solvent enough that they can assume their responsibilities. I am lucky; I have both of my parents who are 78 who, for years, contributed to this country and made their contribution. Let us recognize that as we pass this bill today.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say that as a mother of six children, the issues of health and education are near and dear to all of our hearts, especially as we look at our children and the challenges they face. I want to thank the chairman for the leadership of this committee that addresses what the needs are of children and educational systems and health across this country. He has been supportive, he has been encouraging, and his manner of balancing the differing opinions have been really very inspirational. Mr. Chairman, I think of the story of the child who had a $5 allowance and came in to see his dad and said, Dad, I really need a raise in my allowance. Can I have $10? The father said no, but I will give you a $7 allowance. He said, well, why are you cutting my allowance? This is what we see on the other side. People who think an increase is a decrease. When they talk about the quality of schools, I can tell my colleagues that there must have been a few classrooms across this country that they attended where the difference between addition and subtraction was not made clear. In this bill, we are adding money to education. But really, the bill and the debate here is very much at the crux of the difference between the minority party and the majority party. The fact is, we are listening to our schools. Our schools reflect what the challenges are that each school faces. It is no wonder that some people come to this Congress and say, we need to build more school buildings. Others say we need more teachers. Other say we need to be able to raise our teachers' salaries so that we attract more quality students into our classrooms. Other people come to Congress and say, no, we need to invest in technology. Because in every community, the challenges are different, what States have invested in already are different. Some States have made a tremendous investment in school buildings. But they are eager to raise the salary of their teachers so that they attract high-quality teachers. Mr. Chairman, we believe that the money should go back to the schools, back to the communities where they decide what the critical needs are. I thank the Chairman for a bill that reflects their needs.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I recognize and agree with the concerns of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) who is offering this amendment. I believe that we are all worried about healthy workers, about workers who are important to this economy, they are important to their families, their income is important to their community and their family. This is an issue that is very important. The problem is that the Department of Labor has been absolutely tone deaf in developing this rule. They have had all of these years they have been talking about to develop a rule. There are many people that wish to come to the table and work on this issue. The fact is, in workplaces all across America we have employers, we have cities, we have States, we have hospitals, nursing homes, teachers, every single place across this country, people are looking for workers. It is in all of our best interests to keep our workers healthy and on the job. But the fact is that the Department of Labor has written a rule that is absolutely unacceptable. It does not at all bring all of the people concerned about this to the table and help work out a reasonable rule. It has put all of the costs on the employer, and it is not just businesses that are terribly concerned about this, it is schools; the school districts are talking about being absolutely unable to comply because of the cost. Nursing homes, hospitals, States, cities, the League of Cities. We all know that is not some conservative organization. They are saying that this rule is written in a way that they simply could not, could not comply with this. Mr. Chairman, it threatens the solvency of our workers' compensation program because it overrides current workers compensation programs that have worked so well in our States; and instead it provides an extraordinary level of reimbursement for our workers who would need time off because of repetitive motion injuries. The problem here is one of fairness. It is simply not fair to have two workers that work side by side, one that is truly injured, completely and totally on the job, to get one level of reimbursement and a worker who is off because of a repetitive motion that may be partly his job, partly what he does outside of his job, partly what happened before he came to this workplace, getting an extraordinary level of benefits. It places all of the responsibility on the employer. It has no regard to preexisting condition or what is done outside. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, we need to work on ergonomics rules in total. What ergonomics are, are people that start to have injuries. Those of us over 50 probably do not have a friend that does not have an elbow, a shoulder, a neck, a backache, something that is a repetitive motion problem. Is it exacerbated in the workplace? Sometimes it is. So that is a component of it. But it also may be aggravated by what happens outside of the workplace. So what this rule does not do is recognize the outside of the workplace being part of the cause and what has to be addressed. In truth, what this bill does is chase our best jobs out of this country. It begins to make Mexico and Canada look like great places to put one's next plant or any expansion that one does, so that one can have a reasonable workplace where one can work with one's workers, work to address their concerns, and not absorb enormous costs that are open- ended. It discriminates against older workers, because I hate to say, it does not take long for somebody to figure out that somebody like me in my 50s is more likely to have a joint or a backache or a carpal tunnel problem than it is for a 24-year-old. So if one is an employer and one knows that they have to keep spending money until this person's problem goes away, one can figure out that it is better to hire 23- year-olds than it is 53-year-olds. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is exactly right. Companies are spending millions of dollars right now. They are doing everything they possibly can to reengineer the workplace, to trade and rotate jobs, to address their employees' needs. But it makes no sense to enact a rule or to let the Department of Labor go on with a rule that is so one-sided and does not really bring us solutions. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that there is one workplace that the OSHA rule would not apply, and that is the one workplace that the Federal Government has total control over. Federal employees would not be covered by this rule. It is not enforceable in Federal workplaces, and so they would be the one group that would be exempted.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the previous speaker and say we are all concerned about workers' safety. We all want workers to be able to prevent injury, but the Labor cabinet has not brought us anything that will help us do that, instead they bring us a one-sided rule. It does not include any collaborative effort, and it does not include any employee/employer partnership, which is what all of worker health is about. I would like to tell my colleagues that right here is a response to a request where the Labor cabinet paid 28 people $10,000 to organize and to present testimony in their behalf. The people that oppose the rule that talked about the obstacles and the difficulties in complying came on their own behalf, as citizens, as individuals, as the private sector, to say, hey, listen to us, we want what you want, please, work with us. The Labor cabinet paid 28 people $10,000 apiece to come and testify and enter into the record information to bolster their side. They had to pay people to support their position. So I think that what we see here is people who want to come to the table. They want to work with OSHA. They want best practice guidance. They want an idea of how they can look to best remedy their employee's problems, but what they do not want is a bang-you-over-the- head elephant-in-a-china-shop approach of a big government bureaucracy that will do nothing but cost them money and not give them any good guidance on how to achieve what they very much want to achieve.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that we all agree that we need to look at ergonomics. The fact is that the mother of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and my mother and my mother- in-law and many senior women, whether they have been in the workforce or not, are struggling with carpal tunnel. The fact is it is caused not just by the workplace, but in my case it was caused by years of cooking and sewing. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) just mentioned that the time that she struggled with it the most in her life and needed surgery on both hands was a result of the years of sewing and cooking. The fact is that whatever we are doing causes stress on certain joints if we use it over and over. But the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) also made the point that, even in the workplace that OSHA used to consider this rule, they identified problem after problem where all the employees and the employer and OSHA, working all together with consultants, could not devise a strategy for addressing this particular problem that an employee had. We do need a collaborative effort. We do need the authority of OSHA that has helped reduce workplace injuries. We need them to come to the table and help us to develop some best-thought-out strategies. But as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated, after 8 years and an amazing amount of money and pages in testimony, this bureaucracy has turned out a rule that did not take any of those things into consideration. They have been tone deaf to the people that have asked fair questions about what sort of solution really brings a remedy to their employees in the workplace. Another one of the speakers said complexity is not an excuse for inaction. But I want to tell my colleagues what it does call for. Complexity calls for balance. And we have not seen any balance in this rule, none of it, that reflects the fair concerns of employers and employees in the workplace. Instead, it is heavy-handed and it is extremely expensive. And for those jobs that are not offshore as a result, let me tell them what it does. It absorbs an enormous amount of money in the workplace. What does that mean? It means lower salaries for working families. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the final 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, and so who is going to pay the price as the workplace begins to spend money and to spend money in ways just to experiment with possible remedies just to prove that they are doing something? The person that pays the price is the worker. As the employer says to the worker, I am sorry, I cannot give you the raise you deserve and need and your family wants because, instead, I have to spend the money in the workplace. Has this ever happened before? It has happened before when companies have had to swallow such large costs in health insurance that they have had to go to the bargaining table and reduce what they wanted to offer their employees in terms of salaries and their wages in order to meet the cost of their health insurance. What we are creating here in this rule is an enormous cost driver, and the people that are going to pay the price are the people that have to share what is left over after we meet this bureaucracy regulation. Workers in America are not asking for big, new costs, they are not asking for a big bureaucracy, and they are not asking for our intervention. They are asking us to do everything we can to help them raise their families, support their families, invest in their futures, and send their children to school. They are asking us not to drive up costs, not to drive up taxes, not to create big bureaucracies, and not to centralize more of the Federal Government but, instead, to help them and equip them to meet their needs. OSHA ought to be a partner in that. They should not be an obstacle in it, and they should not drive up the costs and suck out of our economy money that could be in the hands of our workers. This is not fair to our workers. It is not fair to those of us that are looking to OSHA to give us common sense regulation. It comes from a bureaucracy that created the home workplace regulations that were quickly withdrawn. That was not an accident, Mr. Speaker. That was not something that happened by a mistake or one person. That happened because we have an agency that is out of control, that is tone deaf, that will not listen, that does not understand the meaning of balance, and does not understand common sense regulation. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this party is the majority party today because in 1994, the American people said enough is enough and that we are not getting balance, we are getting huge bureaucracies that have promised us everything and delivered us nothing. Please defeat this amendment and send back to the American families what they are really asking for.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a group of Kentuckians who are truly dedicated to serving others. The qualities of our nurses are not limited to their medical skill and quick thinking, but also include their reassuring and comforting manner. Day after day, in endless settings, nurses are expected to be energetic, efficient, and attentive. This week is Kentucky Nurses Week, and we should all remember the nurses across the Commonwealth who have committed their careers to helping others feel better. Each medical area has a network of nurses who devote long hours to offering quality care to people from each walk of life. It probably isn't difficult to remember a time when a nurse's skill eased our pain, or when a nurse's kind words or smile eased our apprehension. From simple to very technical procedures, nurses are prepared to help and offer service in one of the most healing fields. The nursing profession is vital to our well-being and survival. I am proud to call your attention to Kentucky Nurses Week, May 6-12, and hope you will join me in thanking nurses sincerely for their hard work.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise and add my voice to the others in recognition of our teachers who have made such a difference in our lives. Most of us can think back to the years that we went through school, and the teachers that touched us in many different ways, in bringing out our talents and helping us to be successful in school. Those teachers were very different, some were very strict, we thought some of them were very specific; other ones were more creative and brought us in through different ways. But all of them had one thing in common: They gave us a sense of how important education is. They taught us what was important for us to know, and they gave us a love of learning. Today, on this teacher appreciation resolution, I wish to, first of all, thank the teachers in my life, teachers that touched my life and who were largely unthanked in the years where they were making such an important difference to so many children. Secondly, I would like to thank the teachers that are in the classroom today. We are almost at the end of this school year, and many children will walk out of the classroom door and will fail to recognize at this moment in their lives how much their teachers have meant to them this year and will mean to them for the rest of their lives. So, for the children that walk out of the classroom door this year, let us, here in Congress, invite the American people across this country to thank them in these children's stead so that they will know how important they are today and for the future generations.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor a young Kentucky student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Meredith Arensman of Louisville, has been named one of my state's top honorees for The 2000 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards, a nationwide program honoring young people for outstanding acts of volunteerism. Meredith, a senior at Louisville Collegiate School, has organized the annual Louisville Girls Leadership Conference for the past three years, and is now the event chairwoman. Meredith was approached by women in the Louisville area who were concerned about the lack of leadership programs for girls. They wanted Meredith's help in putting together a conference that would help girls choose careers and make life choices with confidence and enthusiasm. Meredith started by creating a planning committee of fellow students who shared her passion for women's rights. They selected workshop topics on mental and physical self-defense, the negative connotation surrounding feminism, and the movement of women into non-traditional careers. Meredith handled public relations, secured an event location, identified speakers and sponsors, and organized volunteers. More than 500 girls and 400 adults, including Gloria Steinem and Geraldine Ferraro, have participated in the conference. As Meredith said, ``We must work to make sure that no one is inhibited by their race, religion, or gender.'' It is my honor to pay tribute to someone who has made a difference to so many other young women. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it is vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions this young citizen has made. Young volunteers like Meredith are inspiring examples to all of us and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. Meredith should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. I heartily applaud Meredith for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better place to live and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world and deserves our sincere respect and admiration. Her actions show that young Americans can, and do, play an important role in our communities and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future. Again, I offer my congratulations to Meredith for this outstanding achievement.

Ms. NORTHUP

Ms. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is an important day for all of our schoolchildren and all of our children across this country. When I came to Congress 3\1/2\ years ago, the rate of children that could not even read at basic level in our schools across this country was 40 percent. Forty percent of all schoolchildren in the fourth grade could not even read at basic levels. Clearly, as we have poured resources, we have poured time and attention and research into making sure our children all learn to read, we were missing the mark with some our children. I am sure all of us do not need to be reminded how important it is that children learn to read. They learn to read first in kindergarten and first grade so that they can go on about in fourth grade to other things: science, health, geography, social studies, all other subjects that require good reading skills. We also know from research that if a child does not learn to read by the beginning of fourth grade, there is a very strong probability that that child will never learn to read at their capacity. Because, in those early years, children are at the stage of brain development where they can learn to read, learn to read quickly, and accurately, learn fluency, and learn to put what they see on the written page into understanding ideas and convert it and learn that information. That is a time in their lives where they are particularly adept at that; and if they miss that opportunity, they are going to find it very difficult at any age and with any amount of work to learn to read at their capacity. So it is a serious problem in this country that we confront today as so many of our children miss this time in their lives when they learn to read. We know that everybody means for children to read, and we believe that all children can learn at a high level. And so, it was important that we ask the question, what are we doing that is not right? What are we missing? The questions that need to be answered are, how do children learn to read? At what age do children go through the stages of learning to read? We need to know at what time we need to intervene when children are not going through those stages and are not learning to read as we hope they will. And what kind of intervention works best? Three years ago, Congress put into the appropriations bill for the education appropriation and health education a research requirement that the Department of Education and the National Institute of Child Health and Development together look at all research that has been done on how children learn to read to give us a better road map, answer the questions that have so confounded us for so many of our children. Today, I am thrilled to know that tomorrow the National Reading Panel is going to give us their answers. They are going to tell us what all the research together tells us about how children learn to read. They are going to answer many of the questions that we have, many of the questions that our teachers around this country want so that they can have a better road map as they approach reading in ways that are the most effective. I am here today to share with the American people and with the Congress the importance that, number one, we have this information; number two, that we make sure that our teachers in our schools around the country get this information and that it is incorporated into our lessons as we go forward in our efforts to make sure that every child learn and learn at a high level; number 3, that we make sure that all future research is done according to standards that will give us the feedback we need to answer additional questions that we have. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our children are waiting for us to have this answer. They only get to be 6 years old once in their life. They only get to be in that time of their life once where they can learn to read and they can learn to read well. After that, it is a struggle. And so, for every child that today is in the first grade, for every child that tomorrow and next year will be in the first grade, let us make sure that we listen to what the scientists can tell us. They can give us a good road map on what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. And may we please not be so closed minded or set in our ways that we cannot change and adjust and incorporate in our schools and in our children's lives this information that we have waited so long for.

Ms. NORTHUP

Ms. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary event that took place in my district, Louisville, Kentucky, one year ago. The horizons of medical possibilities were expanded when an amazing team of doctors performed America's first successful hand transplant at Louisville, Kentucky's Jewish Hospital. I am pleased to report that one year later, everything is going well for the patient and four other hand transplants have taken place around the world. We are moving into a new frontier where transplant medicine's boundless capabilities to heal are no longer restricted to the life threatened, but can also apply to those with mechanical ailments. This giant leap in the application of surgical research reflects the dauntless will of doctors to bring the total health of the individual on par with the available science of today. Such an outstanding achievement is just one example of what can happen when people work together to achieve a common goal. The hand transplant was a joint project of Jewish Hospital, the University of Louisville, and Kleinert and Kutz Associates. This remarkable local partnership is the only one in the country capable of doing a hand transplant. This pioneering accomplishment and other research efforts will have a multiplier effect that can create 1,000 medical jobs in the next five years. But this is just in Louisville, for the effects worldwide are infinite. We are also reminded to maintain profound respect for those who give. None of this would have happened without the hand, which came from Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, the organization that coordinates donation and distribution of body parts in Kentucky, Southern Indiana, and Western Virginia. One person's decision to become an organ and tissue donor can benefit as many as 200 lives. One organ donor can enhance or save the lives of one heart patient, one liver recipient, two lung patients, two kidney patients, one diabetic, two people with impaired vision, three or four burn victims, and over 100 recipients of bone grafts. That is why in February, the House passed a resolution supporting the goals and ideas of National Donor Day. Miracles don't just happen--people make them happen. As the success of this hand transplant demonstrates, a family's contribution of their loved one's organs can not only save a life, but improve the quality of life for others. I salute all those, doctors and donors alike, whose contributions help patients worry less about the little things in life that most people take for granted. I am forever impressed by the kinds of medical miracles we can achieve when we support research endeavors in this country. I am honored to have such a fine team of doctors in Louisville and hope that the contribution of Jewish Hospital, the University of Louisville, and the doctors of Kleinert and Kutz can continue to be built upon by others. Their enthusiasm and dedication add to the vitality of the Louisville community and can-do attitude for all to follow.